CARTER v. TOBY BOWMAN, COMMUNICATION SERVICE, INC., No. 05-11536 Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir. 12/09/05)Keywords: Carter was struck by lightning while working for CSI. He immediately reported the accident to CSI and was taken to an occupational health clinic. At the clinic, he was told he needed to take a drug test pursuant to CSI's substance abuse policy. Carter was informed that if he failed to submit to a drug test, he would jeopardize his employment. Carter left the clinic without taking a drug test and went to an emergency room instead. Carter never took a drug test at the emergency room, nor was he was treated at the emergency room. His termination was upheld.

Charles Ross v. Ellard Construction Company, Inc.,2940288 COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA April 5, 1996, ReleasedKeywords: The Court concluded as follows: "We do not interpret "conclusive presumption of impairment" to mean that a worker is automatically precluded from receiving compensation benefits after failing a DOT drug test. We interpret that phrase to mean that a worker who tests positive for drug use pursuant to the DOT test is conclusively presumed to have been under the influence of drugs when the accident occurred. As a result, the worker cannot present evidence to contradict the results of the DOT drug test.
We conclude that the "conclusive presumption" phrase does not apply to the issue of causation. The words "conclusive presumption" modify "impairment," and "impairment" in the paragraph at issue clearly means that the worker is under the influence of illegal drugs and does not refer to, or eliminate, the issue of the cause of the accident.'"

COLLINS SIGNS, INC. v. SMITH, 833 So.2d 636 (Ala.Civ.App. 11/30/2001)Keywords: The only issue on appeal is whether Smith was impaired by illegal drugs at the time of the accident so to preclude recovery of workers' compensation benefits. See § 25-5-51, Ala. Code 1975. In its judgment, the trial court held: "Based on the evidence, this Court finds that marijuana being in Mr. Smith's system was a contributing cause to this accident but not the sole cause or proximate cause of said accident. The Court further finds that the K-Mart sign was not properly mounted and not properly handled by Mr. Smith when he attempted to move the sign and these reasons were the proximate cause of the accident." REVERSED. The Trial Court erred 1. the trial court's reference to "contributing cause" is incorrect, 2. the trial judge appears to equate proximate cause with sole cause. The Appellate Court concluded: ". . . it is clear from reviewing the record and the final judgment that had Smith not been impaired by illegal drug use, he probably would not have been injured."

Notice:
Information provided is in the nature of general research. DTState Laws 2015, is not in the business of
providing legal or medical advice. To resolve specific problems, you are
urged to find and obtain the counsel of appropriate legal or medical
professionals.

If you are using the DTState Laws 2015 CD-ROM version, be sure to check the web version for the latest and/or newly found information.